Civil rights lawyer Jonathan Feinberg [firm profile] filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of 11 inmates challenging the "unconstitutional conditions" in which inmates are currently being held at four Philadelphia jails. US District Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled last January that overcrowded Philadelphia jails violate inmates' constitutional rights and therefore require court monitoring. Surrick's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Feinberg's partner, University of Pennsylvania law professor David Rudovsky, in 2006 and ordered the City to immediately rectify conditions including "the failure to provide beds and bedding, ... material for personal hygiene including soap, warm water, toothpaste, toothbrushes and shower facilities." Suffolk's temporary injunction expired several months ago, and the new lawsuit now seeks class certification on behalf of all Philadelphia inmates.

A similar lawsuit filed by Rudovsky 35 years ago resulted in court oversight of Philadelphia jails from 1971 to 2001.

A U.S. appeals court reinstated a class-action suit on Friday against a group of banks that force their credit card customers to use arbitration instead of the courts to settle disputes.

The credit cardholders "alleged that the banks (with other co-conspirators, including American Express (AXP.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N)) illegally colluded to force the cardholders to accept mandatory arbitration clauses in their cardholder agreements," according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The cardholders argued that the banks had violated antitrust laws "by refusing to issue cards to individuals who did not agree to arbitration," according to the decision.

The cardholders want the court to stop the banks from compelling arbitration, prevent them from "continuing their alleged collusion" and invalidate the existing mandatory arbitration clauses.

A lower court judge sided with the banks, which include Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Discover Financial Services (DFS.N), Capital One Bank (COF.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N), and dismissed the case, saying the cardholders lacked standing.

The panel of three appellate judges disagreed. "The cardholders have adequately alleged antitrust injuries," it said in its ruling.

Bank of America, Capital One and Discover declined to comment. The other banks did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

"We're quite happy with the decision," said Charles Goodwin, whose Philadelphia law firm represents the credit cardholders. The cardholders are a large class coming from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and California, he added.

Other banks named in the lawsuit include units of HSBC (HSBA.L) and Washington Mutual Inc (WM.N).

Joe Ridout of the nationwide nonprofit group Consumer Action hailed the ruling, saying: "It's unfair for consumers to have to give up their legal and constitutional rights just to get a credit card."

In a significant victory for drug manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the makers of Paxil and Zoloft cannot be sued for failing to warn of a risk of suicide because the Food & Drug Administration has explicitly refused to order such warnings.

Voting 2-1 in a pair of cases where the lower courts issued conflicting rulings, the 3rd Circuit found that such lawsuits must be pre-empted because they directly conflict with action already taken by the FDA.

Writing for the majority, 3rd Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter said the FDA has "actively monitored" the possible risk of suicide from taking the class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, for two decades, and concluded that the suicide warnings demanded by plaintiffs "are without scientific basis and would therefore be false and misleading."

But Sloviter, who was joined by visiting Judge Jane A. Restani of the U.S. Court of International Trade, emphasized that the ruling was a narrow one.

"Our holding is limited to circumstances in which the FDA has publicly rejected the need for a warning that plaintiffs argue state law requires," Sloviter wrote in Colacicco v. Apotex Inc.

In dissent, 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro said he would have allowed both cases to go forward.